CCSF still in bad shape, accrediting commission says

8 standards still out of compliance, says commission as deadline nears

Barbara Beno, president of the the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), talks with the Editorial Board of The San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, May 15, 2014.

Barbara Beno, president of the the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), talks with the Editorial Board of The San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, May 15, 2014.

Photo: Nicole Fruge, The Chronicle

Photo: Nicole Fruge, The Chronicle

Image
1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Barbara Beno, president of the the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), talks with the Editorial Board of The San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, May 15, 2014.

Barbara Beno, president of the the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), talks with the Editorial Board of The San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, May 15, 2014.

Photo: Nicole Fruge, The Chronicle

CCSF still in bad shape, accrediting commission says

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

City College of San Francisco remains out of compliance with eight accreditation standards, so the threat to revoke its accreditation stands, said the commission that set July 31 for the action that would shut the college down.

Accreditation won't be revoked on that date, however, because a judge delayed the deadline until an October trial can determine if the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges properly conducted its 2012 evaluation of City College.

In a letter to college officials on Monday, commission President Barbara Beno cited eight broad areas that still pose problems at the college: how its administration is organized, although the leadership has been entirely replaced and augmented; financial resources; the quality of the college's technology; its physical state; libraries; student support; instructional programs; and overall "institutional effectiveness."

Education officials in San Francisco and Sacramento expressed dismay at the latest decision.

They had hoped the commission's new review of City College - required as part of the college's appeal - would persuade it that City College had progressed enough to stay accredited.

"There were a significant number of standards for which compliance was not demonstrated," Beno wrote to Art Tyler, the college chancellor, and Robert Agrella, the state-appointed special trustee who replaced the elected Board of Trustees a year ago.

"It would take more than a year to achieve compliance," Beno said, citing problematic areas such as student support services, data analysis, internal controls and finance. "The termination decision stands as it was made."

The commission did not conduct a comprehensive new evaluation of City College. Instead, it considered testimony from college leaders made in May as part of their appeal - testimony they had already rejected - and looked at documents submitted by the college.

'Not surprised'

"We are very disappointed but not surprised," said Larry Kamer, a college spokesman. "The fight to save City College's accreditation is far from over."

Paul Feist, a spokesman for state community colleges Chancellor Brice Harris, said, "We continue to believe City College has made tremendous progress in the past year and is focused on completing its recovery."

Some faculty turned to Facebook to express frustration with the commission's hard-line attitude. Former Academic Senate President Karen Saginor paraphrased its decision this way: "Why can't they just die, already?"

Besides pinning its hopes on the lawsuit - which could trigger a completely new evaluation - the college has one more option, made possible in June when the U.S. Department of Education firmly explained to the reluctant commission that it had the power to extend the revocation deadline.

'Restoration status'

As a result of that intervention, the commission created a new "restoration status" for City College - and any other college that finds itself in such a precarious position - giving it two more years to improve and comply with a new range of requirements.